Hibbin R A, Samuel G, Derrick G E
1 Lancaster University, Lancashire, UK.
2 King's College London, Strand, UK.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Apr;13(2):149-159. doi: 10.1177/1556264617751510. Epub 2018 Jan 19.
Social media (SM) research presents new challenges for research ethics committees (RECs) who must balance familiar ethical principles with new notions of public availability. This article qualitatively examines how U.K. REC members view this balance in terms of risk and consent. While it found significant variance overall, there were discernible experience-based trends. REC members with less experience of reviewing SM held inflexible notions of consent and risk that could be categorized as either relying on traditional notions of requiring direct consent, or viewing publicly available data as "fair game." More experienced REC members took a more nuanced approach to data use and consent. We conclude that the more nuanced approach should be best practice during ethical review of SM research.
社交媒体(SM)研究给研究伦理委员会(RECs)带来了新挑战,这些委员会必须在熟悉的伦理原则与公共可及性的新观念之间取得平衡。本文定性研究了英国伦理委员会成员如何从风险和同意的角度看待这种平衡。虽然总体上发现了显著差异,但也有基于经验的明显趋势。审查社交媒体经验较少的伦理委员会成员对同意和风险持有僵化观念,可归类为要么依赖要求直接同意的传统观念,要么将公开可用数据视为“公平竞争对象”。经验更丰富的伦理委员会成员对数据使用和同意采取了更细致入微的方法。我们得出结论,在对社交媒体研究进行伦理审查时,更细致入微的方法应是最佳实践。